I wrote this several weeks ago and it was destined for oblivion. But in light of the recent diatribes from Dawkins Fans, I suppose it's worth posting.

Richard Dawkins offers a "rebuttal" to some of his critics. Since this was brought to my attention, let's have a look. First he responds to his fellow atheists who wish to dissociate themselves from his "shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language."

Read the rest of this entry »

I'll be super-duper busy over the next week, so let me post a public reminder to myself of the laundry list of essays I'd like to finish before the summer is over.

1. Raise the "intriguing possibility" as promised to TP. __X__
2. Pick up where I left off here. _____
3. Evidence that supports a front-loading prediction. _____
4. Evidence that supports another front-loading prediction. _____
5. Begin fleshing out an answer to this question about front-loading. ____

Over at the Evolution and Rationality blog, Shalini, a self-described "pro-Dawkins evangelical atheist", asks, "Whatever did we do to deserve the title militant?"

Read the rest of this entry »

From here:

In the second paper, the group poses a new question, never before asked by scientists studying embryos: How precisely can cells in the embryo read the blueprint? So precisely, the paper suggests, that a precious few molecules signaling a change can make a decisive difference.

"I think the prevailing view has been that cells accomplish all their functions using a complicated combination of mechanisms, each one of which is rather sloppy or noisy," said team member William Bialek, the John Archibald Wheeler/Battelle Professor in Physics. "This research, however, indicates that in the initial hours of a fly embryo's development, cells make decisions to become one part of the body or another by a process so precise that they must be close to counting every available signaling molecule they receive from the mother.""¦"¦"This signaling requires a sensitivity approaching the limits set by basic physical principles," Bialek said.

So, our planet may actually provide a very good guide to alien biospheres. Even if the planetary environment is very different, say a very dense atmosphere or giant oceans, we can still make a good estimate of what one day we may find. Not only that, but convergence tells us aliens will even think in much the same way"¦.Neo-Darwinians typically assume human-like intelligence is an evolutionary fluke, a historical accident. If correct, then the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a complete waste of time. But what we see on this planet tells us otherwise. All the evidence suggests the cognitive world of dolphins is remarkably similar to that of the the great apes. Certainly, both are mammals, but chimps don't live in oceans and the brain structures are markedly different. Even more remarkable is the cognitive architecture of birds, especially crows. Again it maps closely against the mind of the great apes but their brain is now known to be built to a completely different plan. When it comes to tool use the New Caledonian crows are well ahead of chimps. And the convergences don't stop there: warm-bloodedness and singing are convergent with mammals. So is social play. Did you know crows enjoy skiing? And what about the New Zealand parrot known as the kea? Watch out for those delinquent gangs of teenage birds as they roam around trashing cars.

– Simon Conway Morris. 2006. Evolutionary Convergence. Current Biology 16: R826-R827

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins like to argue that science leads to a rejection of religious belief. But as with many of his arguments against religion, his only support is a crude analysis supported by anecdotes. A new study suggests that Dawkins' argument is bogus:

"Our study data do not strongly support the idea that scientists simply drop their religious identities upon professional training, due to an inherent conflict between science and faith, or to institutional pressure to conform," Ecklund says.

Read the rest of this entry »

DNA is so beautifully predisposed to recombine:

I listened to the interview of Sean Carroll on Darwin or Design. He gives a nice interview that explains the basics of "evo-devo." But let's face it, this is an ID blog. So what about his views on ID? Sad to say, but he is yet another one who hears "God" when "ID" is spoken/written and reacts accordingly and predictably. In fact, Jason Rennie asked him directly about front-loading, and again, this is clearly something he has never really thought about. That's fine. It makes it all the more interesting in that his ideas, and evo-devo itself, are extremely friendly to front-loading. In fact, one might say, they represent the way a non-teleologist would attempt to process an evolutionary history that was indeed front-loaded.

Loved the teaching. Loved the science. Couldn't take the politics. Couldn't take the tenure stress. That about sums it up.

Another one bites the dust. It's not always about dueling metaphysics. Sometimes it's just about politics and money. I can't comment on this story better than He Who Lives It (and makes the best of it), so here you go…

A farewell to academia

Here, here and here.

Jason Rennie has just released his audiobook, Darwin or Design. Rennie offers several ways of obtaining the book, where you can purchase the whole thing (25 interviews) for a small price or download individual chapters for free. It looks like Rennie has done an outstanding job putting this project together. Not only does he interview people like Michael Behe and Nick Matzke, but he also obtains interviews from Massimo Pigliucci, Eliot Sober, Guillermo Gonzalez, James Shapiro, and many more. Rennie has clearly gone out of his way to provide a fair-and-balanced presentation (to the book and the book's web page) and he allows his speakers as much time as they want to answer just a few questions. So hop on over and take it look!

"My cause is simply the truth "” the truth stated plainly and openly." So says PZ Myers. So what is the truth? The Champion of Truth and Ambassador of Science will now tell us The Truth.

There is no god, or to say it in the most optimistic and sensitive way possible for a rational person, there is absolutely no evidence for a god"¦..You've got crazy-ass megalomaniacal evangelical kooks telling people to hate their gay/muslim/hindu/godless/female/evolutionist neighbors, you've got mobs believing them, you've got people electing presidents on the basis of how fanatically they will wage a crusade, and you've got even more swooning with the vapors at anyone who criticizes religious belief. Religion makes you nuts. It makes ordinary people identify with invisible spirits, it turns them into caterwauling flibbertigibbet idiots at any slight to a magic man who has never done a thing for them, and it makes them center their lives around head-dunkings and cracker-eating and gibbering chants to an unheeding phantasm.

But what Champion of Truth would be a champion without a Prescription for All? Dr. Truth dazzles us with his Inner Strength and beckons everyone to follow.

You've been given your prescription, people of faith: you believe in a lot of goofy, stupid, ridiculous ideas. You can resign yourself to them if you aren't strong enough to part from them "” I'm not going to follow you to church and drag you out with a choke-chain "” or you can wake up. It's all up to you. One thing you don't get to do is silence the people who point and laugh.

People who point and laugh. That's exactly what I'm doing. LOL.

Dr. Truth: He's Strong. He Defends Science. He is Reason incarnate. He Knows the Truth. And he wants to help you.

Yet further evidence of my pokiness: I can also report that another objective has been accomplished.

What's next? Anyone have some suggestions?